Here is a nice little article from the Houston Chronicle about “elected” and appointed thugs alike (politicians and bureaucrats) working together to “fix” the government school system. The only way these people work together is at the expense of you and me. The government school system cannot be fixed. That would go against the general tendencies of state-held coercive monopolies. The only way children can be freed from a childhood of harmful indoctrination is to abolish the statist system itself.

I was driving by these windmills on a Texas highway and felt compelled to stop and share my thoughts. Like I said I haven’t done too much research, for all I know this is an entirely private enterprise. I have my doubts nonetheless.

The Constitution has no inherent authority or obligation. It has no authority or obligation at all, unless as a contract between man and man. And it does not so much as even purport to be a contract between persons now existing. It purports, at most, to be only a contract between persons living eighty years ago. And it can be supposed to have been a contract then only between persons who had already come to years of discretion, so as to be competent to make reasonable and obligatory contracts.

Constitutional Rehab will be a series of blog entries dedicated to cleansing irrational statism from the minds of “near-voluntaryists” (constitionalists). I have learned that a good strategy when it comes to showing people the truth is to pick the fruits hanging closest to the ground, so to speak. That is, I should focus my efforts on people who are most likely to see the light of complete liberty. Interestingly enough, a lot of constitionalists bash statism, even though they are themselves statists. The main thing I’ve noticed about constitutionalists is that they ABSOLUTELY LOVE the constitution.

The Union government’s actions during the war caused Spooner to radicalize his views to an anarchistic view. In response, Spooner published one of his most famous political tracts, No Treason. In this lengthy essay, Spooner argued that the Constitution was a contract of government (see social contract theory) which had been irreparably violated during the war and was thus void. Furthermore, since the government now existing under the Constitution pursued coercive policies that were contrary to the Natural Law and to the consent of the governed, it had been demonstrated that document was unable to adequately stop many abuses against liberty or to prevent tyranny from taking hold. Spooner bolstered his argument by noting that the Federal government, as established by a legal contract, could not legally bind all persons living in the nation since none had ever signed their names or given their consent to it – that consent had always been assumed, which fails the most basic burdens of proof for a valid contract in the courtroom.

Of course, feel free to go on an read the whole thing for yourself, but I’m hoping that I may have a few constitutionalist readers who may just want to take it slow and see what I think about it.